anonymize_student

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: irreversibility, no recovery or support path, destruction of name and email, gating by a confirmation header, and required OAuth scope/capability. This goes well beyond what the annotations alone communicate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than average, but the redundancy is justified for an irreversible destructive operation. It is logically organized: consequence, parameters, usage constraints, alternative, and authorization. A minor grammar hiccup ('sends and sends on nothing else') keeps it from being perfectly polished.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, high-stakes operation, the description is complete: it covers irreversibility, parameter meaning, confirmation requirement, appropriate usage, the reversible alternative, and required permissions. The existence of an output schema means return-value documentation is unnecessary here.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the full burden. It explains that `id` is the obfuscated Skilljar learner id and explicitly states that `confirm=True` must be passed, which the schema only marks as a defaulted boolean. Both parameters receive meaningful semantic guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action ('PERMANENTLY ERASE a learner's personal data') and names the exact resource and effect. It also distinguishes itself from the reversible sibling `deactivate_student`, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: only when the user explicitly asks to anonymize a specific learner, and explicitly prohibits bulk requests, cleanup, or inference from course content. It directly names `deactivate_student` as the reversible alternative for removing access.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.